Comparison of Three Group Dynamics Theorists

 

 

Comparison of Three Group Dynamics Theorists

 by Vicky L. Oldham, January 28, 2021

I find the early group dynamics theorists to be the most interesting.  Viewed through the historical perspective, they addressed the challenges of their day by studying the behavior of social groups (Ettin et al., 1997).  For this reason, I chose to discuss and compare Kurt Lewin, Floyd Allport, and Emile Durkheim in my overview of three pioneers in the field of group dynamics.

Kurt Lewin (1890-1947), the first social scientist to apply the term "group dynamics," believed in the rigors of scientific method to reveal facts about human nature (Forsythe, 2010).  He considered his "field theory" to be revolutionary on a scale similar to Galileo's quantum leap in physics compared to Aristotle's outdated laws (Lewin, 1936).  Lewin incorporated the idea that "groups are more than the sum of their parts,” positing that a group is a singular entity with unique properties (Forsythe, 2010). Due to his groundbreaking research, he is considered a founder of modern sociology (Cherry, 2020).  However, not all prominent sociologists agreed with Lewin’s ideas.

Lewin’s contemporary, Floyd Allport (1890-1979), is held with similar esteem and has been referred to as the "father of experimental social psychology" (Katz, 1979, [abstract]).  Interestingly, Allport's conclusions about groups contradict the assertions of Lewin.  Although he used scientific methods to understand human behavior, he believed that all groups must be reduced to their simplest components to understand them. Allport rejected the notion that social groups are real; instead, it was the individual who holds the key to all behavior. Furthermore, he thought that considering groups as distinct entities impeded the study of social science, stating, "The group is not an elementary fact. Analysis must go beyond it to the behavior of individuals of whom it is composed" (Allport, 1919, p. 297). He remained steadfast in this view throughout his life.

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), regarded as the founder of the French school of sociology, developed the concept of the "group mind," asserting that a group's properties are fundamentally different from individuals (Forsyth, 2010; Peyre, 2021).  Although Durkheim valued scientific methods, he was best known for his academic approach.  In his publication, "The Rules of Sociological Methods," he declared social phenomena to be "emergent" and that "patterns and outcomes occurring at a higher level could not be explained or predicted at a lower level" (Durkheim et al., 2014, p. xix; Sawyer, 2002).  To support this idea, Durkheim used analogies such as the futility of studying neurons to understand the mind or the inability to explain the hardness of bronze through knowledge of its constituents, tin and copper.

Comparison of Theorists

All three sociologists believed in using scientific methods to understand and define the nature of human behavior (Johnson & Johnson, 2016).  Although they sought similar answers to age-old questions, their approaches differed, as did their study subjects, reflected in their conclusions.  Often, each researcher’s theories or methods were subject to criticism by their peers, some of whom claimed that they manipulated their research to fit pre-existing assumptions or oversimplified their results (Pickering & Walford, 2000; Watson, n.d.).  Perhaps their differences may be summarized by referencing an ancient Indian parable: the blind men and the elephant.

In the parable, six blind men learn of an elephant's existence for the first time and agree to its examination.  The six men approach from different positions and react to the first part they touch.  They describe the elephant according to their immediate impression; it is a snake (the trunk), a fan (the ear), a spear (the tusk), a wall (the side), a tree (the leg), and rope (the tail).  Next, they argue among themselves, believing that each has learned the all-encompassing truth.  Having observed the previously unknown beast close up, they quickly become entrenched in their views (Anantula, 2018).  In the same way, researchers determined to uncover absolute truths about human behavior may become biased based on their firsthand observations.

Floyd Allport asserted that the “social behavior of the individual underlies all aggregation” and that a group displays the “appearance, not the reality of unity” (1919, p. 198).  Fractal geometry supports this idea. When one admires the dazzling contours of a Mandelbrot set or the snowflake-like appearance of Koch’s curve, it is hard to imagine they are composed of simple units iterated to infinity.  Intricate fractal designs seem unrelated to their simplest building blocks, but this is only an illusion.  We also see how, in nature, large masses often reflect their smallest components, such as in the fronds of a fern or patterns of airborne clouds.  Conversely, lessons from the natural world also demonstrate how individuals may assume vastly different properties when combined into groups.

The jellyfish-like Portuguese man-of-war provides such an example.  It is a siphonophore, consisting of a colony of genetically identical cellular organisms called zooids.  Only when integrated into the group do the zooids differentiate according to function.  Despite biological facts and the wealth of observations about social behavior provided by fellow researchers, Allport continued to deny the value of studying groups (Johnson & Johnson, 2016).

In contrast to Allport, Emile Durkheim is famous for defining the idea of a "group mind" and based much of his research on empirical data.  Durkheim didn't believe that direct observation could reveal a phenomena's true nature; instead, it required viewing information through groups or laws for comprehensive understanding (Sawyer, 2002).  Sociologist Vilfredo Pareto criticized Durkheim's work on suicide, claiming it lacked a scientific approach, going so far as to accuse him of framing his results to fit his objectives.  Additionally, "Pareto concluded that Durkheim' seems to offer metaphysical abstractions as causes for real phenomena'" (Pickering & Walford, 2000, p. 105).  Although his peers ultimately respected him for his abstract concepts, Durkheim's findings about groups reflected the chaotic period in which he lived (late 1800s France).  His research led him to conclude that technological advances do not always relate to human progress, excessive materialism threatens society's equilibrium, and suicide is due to an individual's isolation from or lack of inclusion by society (Peyre, 2021).

Influenced by Gestalt psychologists of his day, Kurt Lewin believed that understanding the individual's relationship to the environment is essential to a proper understanding of human behavior (Cherry, 2020).  He thought it was necessary to view people in the context of their "life space" or social group to analyze and predict outcomes.  Lewin used the term "action research" to foster "insight into the function of leadership and culture, and of other essentials of group life" (Ash, 1992, as cited in Lewin, 1943, p. 113).  Despite his dedication to scientific methods in pursuit of social truths, other researchers criticized the simplicity of some of his conclusions.  Among these is Lewin's 3-step model for organizational change (Burnes, 2020).  The first step, to "unfreeze," rescinds pressures causing a group to remain the same; the second step, "transition," engages a course of action with incentives for change. Finally, "refreezing" refers to methods that reinforce the change.  Critics of Lewin's 3-step model believe it fails to account for all possible factors required for effective change, including the need for active participation of all individuals in the organization (Watson, n.d.).  However, Lewin's simplification using three steps remains a valued guide to the significant forces required for change.

Conclusion

All three researchers are acclaimed pioneers in the field of group dynamics, and all offered profound insights in different yet meaningful ways.  Thanks to their contributions, the range of observations and data they collected integrate with an accumulating body of knowledge, from studying basic units to assessing groups' macro-properties.  In the end, we gain multiple pathways to our understanding that eventually applies to practical use.  Theorists begin as the "blind men examining the elephant." However, through the passion of their interests and dedication to scientific research, they forge new pathways with discoveries that ultimately help us embrace current challenges and solve future problems.

 

References

Allport, F. H. (1919). Behavior and experiment in social psychology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology (1965), 14(5), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073020

Anantula, S. (2018, July 12). The six blind men and the elephant. Medium. https://medium.com/humanomics-social-change/the-six-blind-men-and-the-elephant-889e174f9cb6

Ash, M. G. (1992). Cultural contexts and scientific change in psychology: Kurt Lewin in Iowa. American Psychologist, 47(2), 198–207. https://doi-org.libproxy.nau.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.47.2.198

Burnes, B. (2020). The Origins of Lewin’s three-step model of change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319892685

Burnes, Bernard, & Cooke, Bill. (2013). Kurt Lewin's field theory: a review and re‐evaluation. International Journal of Management Reviews: IJMR, 15(4), 408–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00348.x

Cherry, K. (2020, November 24). Kurt Lewin and modern social psychology. VeryWellMind.

https://www.verywellmind.com/kurt-lewin-biography-1890-1947-2795540

Durkheim É., Lukes, S., & Halls, W. D. (2014). The rules of sociological method: and selected texts on sociology and its method. Free Press. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Rules_of_Sociological_Method/7BHgAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

Ettin, M. F., Cohen, B. D., & Fidler, J. W. (1997). Group-as-a-whole theory viewed in its 20th-century context. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(4), 329–340. https://doi-org.libproxy.nau.edu/10.1037/1089-2699.1.4.329

Forsyth, D. (2010). Introduction to group dynamics (5th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.

Johnson, D.H., & Johnson, F.P. (2016). Joining together: group theory and group skills (12th ed.). Pearson (pp. 1-45).

Katz, D. (1979). Obituary: Floyd H. Allport (1890-1978). American Psychologist, 34(4), 351–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078276

Lewin, K., Adams, D. K., & Zener, K. E. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality; selected papers (1st ed..). McGraw-Hill Book Company, inc.

Lewin, K. (1931b). Environmental forces in child behavior and development. In C.Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 94–127). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Row.

Peyre, H.M. (2021, January 14) Emile Durkheim. Encylopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Emile-Durkheim

Pickering, W. S. F., & Walford, G. (2000). Durkheim’s suicide: A century of research and debate. Routledge. London and New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203459270

Sawyer, R. (2002). Durkheim's dilemma: toward a sociology of emergence. Sociological Theory, 20(2), 227-247. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3108647

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2020, September 5). Kurt Lewin. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kurt-Lewin

Watson, A. (n.d.). Lewin’s change management model vs Kotter’s 8-step model. Together Abroad. https://www.togetherabroad.nl/blogs/3/qee4wt-lewin-s-change-management-model-vs-kotter-s-8-step-model